Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2501 (MAD)

S. Devarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-06-02

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2025
ORDER : RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. The above writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the proceedings issued by the third respondent in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013, and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in RC.No.167282/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 15.02.2006, and to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits, on par with his batchmates. 2. The chequered history of the case is as follows: (i) The petitioner herein was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Vellode Police Station from 21.01.2005 to 17.05.2005. On 12.05.2005, one Shanmugam @ Sakthi, S/o. Arumugam, lodged a complaint at Vellode Police Station against one Shanmugavel and one Vignesh. The complaint was registered as Vellode Police Station Crime No.86/2005 under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The petitioner registered the case, arrested the accused, and subsequently released them on bail. (ii) It was later alleged that the petitioner abducted Mahalakshmi, W/o. Shanmugavel (the accused in Crime No.86/2005), by trespassing into her residence on the night of 12/13.05.2005 at around 2:30 a.m., under the pretext of an enquiry. He was accompanied by one Anandan @ Anandkumar, a "Friend of Police," and used a Government-allotted motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 33 G 0285. It was further alleged that the petitioner raped Mahalakshmi in the premises of the Ellai Maraiamman Temple near Muhaasi Anumanpallai Village. (iii) Based on the complaint filed by Mahalakshmi, a case was registered as Vellode Police Station Crime No.88/2005 under Sections 451 , 352, 366, 376 (i), read with Sections 376 (i), 511, and 212 of the IPC , against the petitioner and Anandan @ Anandakumar. The case was tried in S.C.No.135 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, and ended in acquittal by judgment dated 13.11.2006. Due to his involvement in the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the third respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, under Rule 3(e)(i)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 , vide R.O.No.187 of 2005 in C.No.D1/4294/2005, dated 16.05.2005. (iv) The petitioner was charged under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in PR.No.41 of 2006, based on the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Sub-Division. (iv) The petitioner was charged under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in PR.No.41 of 2006, based on the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Sub-Division. The enquiry covered six charges, all of which were held to be proved after an oral enquiry was conducted under Rule 3(b). (v) A further representation was obtained from the petitioner, and the punishment order in the PR was at the final stage. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.1748 and 1749 of 2007 before this Court, seeking to quash the charge memo issued in PR.No.41 of 2006 under Rule 3(b) and the suspension order. Subsequently, both writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 28.04.2010. 3. The petitioner was directed to be dealt with under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 , in P.R.No.41 of 2006, based on six charges framed pursuant to the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 4. The enquiry was conducted, and it was held that the charges were proved. A further report was submitted thereafter. The writ petitioner filed W.P.Nos.1748 and 1749 of 2007 before this Court, seeking to quash the charge memo issued in P.R.No.41 of 2006 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, as well as the suspension order. Subsequently, both writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 28.04.2010. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.974/Public (L&O) Department, dated 18.08.2008, departmental action under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, was directed to be initiated against the petitioner for the same incident, based on the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, under Police Standing Order 151 . Consequently, charges were framed, and the earlier proceedings were duly cancelled by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore. 6. It is submitted that a fresh charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.49 of 2008, was framed for the following delinquencies and served on the petitioner on 17.12.2008. Consequently, charges were framed, and the earlier proceedings were duly cancelled by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore. 6. It is submitted that a fresh charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.49 of 2008, was framed for the following delinquencies and served on the petitioner on 17.12.2008. (i) Reprehensible and unbecoming conduct of a responsible police officer in taking a woman named Mahalakshmi from her residence at Vellode, using a Government motorcycle, and while in uniform, after midnight on 12/13.05.2005 around 02:30 a.m., under the pretext of an enquiry. This was done without the assistance of a woman police constable, contrary to the guidelines issued by departmental superiors and the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Instead of bringing the victim to the police station, the officer took her to a private location near a temple close to the police station, with wrongful intent. This act constitutes serious misconduct and is highly reprehensible. (ii) Highly reprehensible conduct in severely assaulting Shanmugavel of Mugai Anumanpalli on 11.05.2005 at about 07:30 a.m., upon receiving a telephonic complaint from Subramaniam, Ravi, and Shanmugam of the same village. Again, during the early hours of 12/13.05.2005 around 02:30 a.m., while taking Mahalakshmi under the guise of enquiry, the petitioner was questioned and restrained by her husband, Shanmugavel, and her father, Balakrishnan. Ignoring their objections, the officer assaulted both of them. Such conduct, particularly while in uniform, amounts to grave indiscipline. (iii) Grossly reprehensible and indisciplined conduct in failing to attend the Revenue Divisional Officer’s enquiry and absconding from the proceedings scheduled between 18.05.2005 and 31.05.2005. The enquiry, conducted in accordance with Police Standing Order 151 , was initiated to examine the misconduct of the officer that occurred in a public place on 12/13.05.2005 at around 02:30 a.m. 7. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.10176 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration; consequently, the suspension order was set aside. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam, conducted an oral enquiry and, on 07.07.2010, found all three counts of the charges to be proved. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.10176 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration; consequently, the suspension order was set aside. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam, conducted an oral enquiry and, on 07.07.2010, found all three counts of the charges to be proved. The punishing authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range (third respondent), concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and, by proceedings Rc.No.D1/PR.11/2010 dated 14.05.2011, imposed the punishment of "reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. 9. Aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai. Since the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay could no longer be imposed after the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009— under which time scales and stages in the time scale no longer exist—the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) set aside the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, and remitted the PR file to him with the liberty to pass appropriate orders afresh that could be implemented. 10. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, modified the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect to the postponement of the next increment for a period of three years, which would delay his future increments. This was issued in proceedings Rc.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013, and the order was served on him on 20.08.2013. His subsequent appeal was rejected by an order dated 16.02.2014. 11. The third round of litigation commenced when the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20031 of 2014 against the order. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 12. As per the orders of this Court, the appeal petition dated 04.09.2013 was once again considered by the Additional Director General of Police (L&O), Chennai, who confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range (third respondent), in his proceedings in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013. 12. As per the orders of this Court, the appeal petition dated 04.09.2013 was once again considered by the Additional Director General of Police (L&O), Chennai, who confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range (third respondent), in his proceedings in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013. The appeal petition was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police vide proceedings Rc.No.16781/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 15.02.2016. The petitioner was served with these proceedings on 28.02.2016. Consequently, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.33234 of 2016 before this Court, seeking to quash the order issued by the third respondent in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013, and the orders passed in appeal by the second respondent in Rc.No.167282/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 15.02.2016, leading to the present writ petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 14. While the petitioner worked as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Vellode Police Station from 21.01.2005 to 17.05.2005.. 15. (i) An F.I.R. was registered at the instance of one Shanmugam @ Sakthi, S/o Arumugam, who filed a complaint at Vellode Police Station against one Shanmugavel and one Vignesh. The complaint was registered in Vellode Police Station Crime No.86 of 2005 under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner, S. Devarajan. (ii) Subsequently, the petitioner, S. Devarajan, abducted Mahalakshmi, W/o Shanmugavel, the accused in Vellode Police Station Crime No.86 of 2005 under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, by trespassing into her house on 12/13.05.2005 at 02:30 a.m., under the pretext of an enquiry. He was assisted by one Anandan, a friend of the police, on a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 33 G 0285, which had been allotted to the petitioner by the Government. The petitioner is alleged to have raped Mahalakshmi in the premises of Ellai Maraiamman Temple near Muhasi Anumanpallai Village. (iii) A case was registered in Vellode Police Station Crime No.88 of 2005 under Sections 451, 352, 366, 376(i), read with 511 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and his associates, Anand @ Anandakumar. (iv) The criminal case registered against the petitioner in Vellode Police Station Crime No.88 of 2005 under Sections 451, 352, 366, 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code, read with 511 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, ended in acquittal in S.C.No.135 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in its order dated 13.11.2006. (iv) The criminal case registered against the petitioner in Vellode Police Station Crime No.88 of 2005 under Sections 451, 352, 366, 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code, read with 511 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, ended in acquittal in S.C.No.135 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in its order dated 13.11.2006. (v) The petitioner was ordered to be dealt with on charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in PR.No.41 of 2006, based on the preliminary enquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perundurai Sub-Division. The enquiry, which was oral, found all six counts of the charge to be proved. 16. Initially, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.974, Public (L&O) Department, dated 18.08.2008, communicated in the Chief Officer memo Rc.No.167282/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 25.09.2008, ordering the initiation of departmental action under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, against the petitioner for the same episode, based on the PSO 151 enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode. Consequently, the departmental action previously initiated in PR.No.41 of 2006 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, was cancelled by the third respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore - 18, without prejudice to the departmental action to be initiated afresh based on the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode. This was done through proceedings Rc.No.D1/4294/2005, dated 21.11.2008. Accordingly, a fresh charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in PR.No.49 of 2008, was framed against the petitioner and served on him on 17.12.2008. Hence, I find that the charge memo under challenge was duly passed by the Government, in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.974, dated 18.08.2008. The issuance of the fresh charge memo is legally sustainable, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate. 17. The proceedings were conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the enquiry was carried out by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as stated above. The Revenue Divisional Officer completed the enquiry, and his report was marked through Management Witness No. I. The witness deposed that the enquiry was conducted as per the orders of the Government and testified as follows: 18. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. 19. The Revenue Divisional Officer completed the enquiry, and his report was marked through Management Witness No. I. The witness deposed that the enquiry was conducted as per the orders of the Government and testified as follows: 18. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. 19. These two pieces of evidence were taken into consideration by the Domestic Officer. The Domestic Officer recorded a finding that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Erode, recorded all statements of the witnesses under PSO 151 in the capacity of Executive Magistrate. The charge against the petitioner is not for rape but for taking the woman with bad intentions. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the witnesses were influenced by the delinquent and managed to provide contradictory statements during their cross-examination. Consequently, the explanation and the Final Report (FR) with regard to the first count of the charge were not considered and could not be accepted. I agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer (EO) in holding the first count of the charge as proved. 20. P.W.1, Mr. Viyasar Bagawan, Deputy Tahsildar, confirmed the absconding of the accused during the enquiry and submitted the RDO enquiry report as Ex.P.1. The deposition of the aforementioned two PWs clearly established that the delinquent was absconding from 18.05.2005 to 31.05.2005 when the RDO proposed to conduct an enquiry under PSO 151. The explanation provided by the delinquent has been rightly and completely dismissed by the Enquiry Officer (EO) on merits, and the punishment was imposed as stated above. Therefore, the writ petition is without merit. 21. The crux of the issue is that the petitioner, while working as a Sub Inspector, allegedly kidnapped a person who was wife of the accused in an alleged offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. at 02:30 a.m. in the middle of the night, using the official motorcycle. This led to protests and social unrest in the village, prompting the Government to order an enquiry by the Revenue Officer as provided in the Police Standing Order. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges were proved, and the report was accepted by the disciplinary authority, which subsequently imposed punishment. Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case due to the witnesses turning hostile, the findings of the departmental enquiry still stand. 22. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges were proved, and the report was accepted by the disciplinary authority, which subsequently imposed punishment. Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case due to the witnesses turning hostile, the findings of the departmental enquiry still stand. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is no positive evidence in the domestic enquiry, and hence, the statements made in the preliminary enquiry cannot serve as a basis for proving the charge. This Court has given its careful consideration to the said contention. 23. On perusal of the evidence provided by Mahalakshmi before the Enquiry Officer, coupled with the fact that the charge in the departmental proceedings does not accuse the petitioner of raping Mahalakshmi, but rather of taking her to a private place near the Police Station, where there is a temple, with bad intentions, it is clear that the petitioner used the official Government motorcycle to transport Mahalakshmi after midnight on 12/13 May 2005, around 02:30 a.m., under the pretext of a police enquiry, without the assistance of a woman constable at the police station. This act of the petitioner, violated the guidelines issued by the superiors, as well as the directives from the Apex Court. 24. To the extent available, the evidence is present in the enquiry report as testified by Mahalakshmi. Therefore, I find that during the domestic enquiry, Mahalakshmi, the victim, did not mention the alleged several offence of rape by the police officer. She only testified regarding Charge No. I, which is sufficient to substantiate the charges. Consequently, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have rightly concluded that the charges are proven. 25. Regarding the quantum of punishment, considering the gravity of the charges and the misconduct committed by the petitioner, and acknowledging that the incident occurred as early as 12.05.2005, I note that the inquiry was conducted after a prolonged period due to various writ petitions filed by the petitioner and frequent adjournments over the subsequent five years. Despite this delay, I find that the petitioner, being a uniformed officer, should have exhibited greater diligence and responsibility. The manner in which he acted is not acceptable. Therefore, I conclude that the quantum of punishment is commensurate with the proven charges, and this petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed . No costs.